The exceptions for reporting of current events and quotation facilitate the functioning of the media. On 27 July 2017, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) submitted several questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) on the balance between copyright exceptions and the fundamental freedoms of information and the media, as well as the exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. In answering these questions, the CJEU may well shed light on the open-ended drafting of these exceptions.

<p>The exceptions for reporting of current events and quotation facilitate the functioning of the media. On 27 July 2017, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) submitted several questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) on the balance between copyright exceptions and the fundamental freedoms of information and the media, as well as the exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. In answering these questions, the CJEU may well shed light on the open-ended drafting of these exceptions.</p>

The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content.

<p>The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content. </p>

Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests. Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.

<p>Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests. Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.</p>

@book{Schroff2017c,
title = {Who owns the broadcasting archives? Unravelling copyright ownership of broadcast content },
author = {Simone Schroff},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/who-owns-the-broadcasting-archives-final-2/},
isbn = {978-90-86920-62-4},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-11-01},
publisher = {deLex},
abstract = {Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests.

Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests.

Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.

The extent to which digital consumption of pirated materials displaces legitimate purchases is of fundamental importance for EU copyright policy design. The European Commission has commissioned Ecorys to carry out a study on the relation between online copyright infringement (digital piracy) and sales of copyrighted content.

This study adds to the existing literature in at least three ways. Firstly, it compares piracy rates in multiple EU Member States calculated according to the same methodology. This makes it possible to compare results between countries. Secondly, displacement rates are estimated in the presence of an important recent phenomenon, i.e. the widespread availability of a wide variety of services for downloading or streaming content. Thirdly, the study includes minors to assess the extent of piracy among this group.

<p>The extent to which digital consumption of pirated materials displaces legitimate purchases is of fundamental importance for EU copyright policy design. The European Commission has commissioned Ecorys to carry out a study on the relation between online copyright infringement (digital piracy) and sales of copyrighted content.

This study adds to the existing literature in at least three ways. Firstly, it compares piracy rates in multiple EU Member States calculated according to the same methodology. This makes it possible to compare results between countries. Secondly, displacement rates are estimated in the presence of an important recent phenomenon, i.e. the widespread availability of a wide variety of services for downloading or streaming content. Thirdly, the study includes minors to assess the extent of piracy among this group.</p>

This book examines pragmatic legal solutions that enable Internet users to access works in the digital environment by exploring the flexibilities in EU copyright law in search of a consistent regulation of non-commercial online use. In addition to proving virtually impossible, online enforcement of copyright may be undesirable because it risks encroaching upon fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the problem remains that creators are often not fairly remunerated for the online use of their works. This book addresses the need for legalisation schemes that favour remunerated access over exclusivity and enforcement for large-scale online use by individuals, while assuring remuneration to rights holders and promoting the development of the information society.

<p>This book examines pragmatic legal solutions that enable Internet users to access works in the digital environment by exploring the flexibilities in EU copyright law in search of a consistent regulation of non-commercial online use. In addition to proving virtually impossible, online enforcement of copyright may be undesirable because it risks encroaching upon fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the problem remains that creators are often not fairly remunerated for the online use of their works. This book addresses the need for legalisation schemes that favour remunerated access over exclusivity and enforcement for large-scale online use by individuals, while assuring remuneration to rights holders and promoting the development of the information society.</p>

This paper examines the competence of the EU to introduce a neighbouring right for publishers (including a neighbouring right for press publishers, also called "ancillary copyright"). The assessment of competence is carried out following a step-by-step approach, which involves an analysis of the applicable Treaty norms and an assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality.

<p>This paper examines the competence of the EU to introduce a neighbouring right for publishers (including a neighbouring right for press publishers, also called "ancillary copyright"). The assessment of competence is carried out following a step-by-step approach, which involves an analysis of the applicable Treaty norms and an assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality. </p>

This past decade has seen a veritable surge of development of ‘soft law’ private international instruments for intellectual property. A global network has been formed made up of academics and practitioners who work on the intersection of these domains. This article examines the synthesizing work of the International Law Association’s Committee on intellectual property and private international law. Now that its draft Guidelines on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement are at an advanced stage, what can be said about consensus and controversy about dealing with transborder intellectual property disputes in the information age? What role can principles play in a world where multilateral rulemaking on intellectual property becomes ever deeply politicized and framed as an issue of trade? Arguably, private international law retains it facilitating role and will continue to attract the attention of intellectual property law specialists as a necessary integral part of regulating transborder information flows.

<p>This past decade has seen a veritable surge of development of ‘soft law’ private international instruments for intellectual property. A global network has been formed made up of academics and practitioners who work on the intersection of these domains. This article examines the synthesizing work of the International Law Association’s Committee on intellectual property and private international law. Now that its draft Guidelines on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement are at an advanced stage, what can be said about consensus and controversy about dealing with transborder intellectual property disputes in the information age? What role can principles play in a world where multilateral rulemaking on intellectual property becomes ever deeply politicized and framed as an issue of trade? Arguably, private international law retains it facilitating role and will continue to attract the attention of intellectual property law specialists as a necessary integral part of regulating transborder information flows. </p>

Remuneration for the use of works : exclusivity vs. other approaches, ALAI DE GRUYTER, Berlin, 2016, ISBN: 978-3-11-047819-8, (<p>
Paper presented at ALAI International Congress - 50 Years of the German Copyright Act: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Bonn, June 18-20, 2015. Published in: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Edited by S. von Lewinski, Silke, De Gruyter (December 2016) </p>
).

This paper briefly discusses an alternative legal model to assure remuneration for non-commercial mass online uses by individuals, covered by the exclusive rights of reproduction and communication/making available to the public in Directive 2001/29/EC. Alternative compensation systems (ACS) are legal mechanisms that forsake the need for direct authorization of end-user acts under the aforementioned rights \textendash downloading, uploading, sharing, modifying \textendash, while simultaneously ensuring compensation to creators (i.e. authors and performers) or all rights holders of works included in the scheme. After providing some background, the paper explains the concept of ACS, outlines the legal models and challenges to its implementation and reports on the results of an ongoing interdisciplinary research project on the legal and socioeconomic feasibility of such systems carried out by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam. Chief among the findings are the willingness of users to pay for and participate in an ACS, its quantification and, using the case-study of recorded music, the realization that such a model holds the promise of being welfare increasing.

},
note = {<p>
Paper presented at ALAI International Congress - 50 Years of the German Copyright Act: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Bonn, June 18-20, 2015. Published in: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Edited by S. von Lewinski, Silke, De Gruyter (December 2016) </p>
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}

<p>
This paper briefly discusses an alternative legal model to assure remuneration for non-commercial mass online uses by individuals, covered by the exclusive rights of reproduction and communication/making available to the public in Directive 2001/29/EC. Alternative compensation systems (ACS) are legal mechanisms that forsake the need for direct authorization of end-user acts under the aforementioned rights – downloading, uploading, sharing, modifying –, while simultaneously ensuring compensation to creators (i.e. authors and performers) or all rights holders of works included in the scheme. After providing some background, the paper explains the concept of ACS, outlines the legal models and challenges to its implementation and reports on the results of an ongoing interdisciplinary research project on the legal and socioeconomic feasibility of such systems carried out by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam. Chief among the findings are the willingness of users to pay for and participate in an ACS, its quantification and, using the case-study of recorded music, the realization that such a model holds the promise of being welfare increasing.</p>

This article critically examines the 'new public' test in EU copyright law, which was developed by the CJEU interpreting the right of communication to the public in cases of retransmission and hyperlinking. As the authors seek to demonstrate, this test is flawed for at least three reasons: historical, conceptual and economic. EU copyright law can do well without a 'new public' test.

<p>This article critically examines the 'new public' test in EU copyright law, which was developed by the CJEU interpreting the right of communication to the public in cases of retransmission and hyperlinking. As the authors seek to demonstrate, this test is flawed for at least three reasons: historical, conceptual and economic. EU copyright law can do well without a 'new public' test.

This contribution inquires the following assumption: if libraries have a public task to provide low threshold access to (online) information, then shouldn’t copyright law, as a system of exclusive rights and exceptions which shares goals in the organization and dissemination of information, somehow facilitate that task?

A new EU study looks at the remuneration paid to authors in the print sector in ten EU countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Hungary and Denmark). The study was conducted to support policy-making in the area of copyright. The Commission is looking for evidence on whether, and to what extent, the differences that exist amongst the Member States' legislative frameworks affect levels of remuneration and the functioning of the internal market.

<p>A new EU study looks at the remuneration paid to authors in the print sector in ten EU countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Hungary and Denmark). The study was conducted to support policy-making in the area of copyright. The Commission is looking for evidence on whether, and to what extent, the differences that exist amongst the Member States' legislative frameworks affect levels of remuneration and the functioning of the internal market.</p>

This chapter traces the sui generis database right’s historic roots, describes its main features, compares it to copyright, questions its legal nature especially in the light of international intellectual property agreements, and finally examines to what extent the goals of the Directive have been met.

Almost everyone agrees that modern copyright law needs to be flexible in order to accommodate rapid technological change and evolving media uses. In the United States fair use is the flexible instrument of choice. Author’s right systems in Europe are generally deemed to be less flexible and less tolerant to open-ended limitations and exceptions. But are they really?

This chapter makes the case that (1) author’s rights systems can be made as flexible as copyright systems, and (2) that the existing EU legal framework does not preclude the development of flexible norms at the national level.

},
note = {

In: Copyright Law in an Age of Limitations and Exceptions, R. Okediji (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016, p. 242-258 (forthcoming).

Almost everyone agrees that modern copyright law needs to be flexible in order to accommodate rapid technological change and evolving media uses. In the United States fair use is the flexible instrument of choice. Author’s right systems in Europe are generally deemed to be less flexible and less tolerant to open-ended limitations and exceptions. But are they really?

This chapter makes the case that (1) author’s rights systems can be made as flexible as copyright systems, and (2) that the existing EU legal framework does not preclude the development of flexible norms at the national level.

The second edition of Concise European Copyright Law was published in Spring 2016. Concise European Copyright Law aims to offer the reader a rapid understanding of all the provisions of copyright law in force in Europe that have been enacted at the European and international levels. This volume takes the form of an article-by-article commentary on the relevant EU directives and international treaties in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights. Editors and authors are prominent specialists (academics and practitioners) in the field of international and European copyright law.

The second edition of Concise European Copyright Law was published in Spring 2016. Concise European Copyright Law aims to offer the reader a rapid understanding of all the provisions of copyright law in force in Europe that have been enacted at the European and international levels. This volume takes the form of an article-by-article commentary on the relevant EU directives and international treaties in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights. Editors and authors are prominent specialists (academics and practitioners) in the field of international and European copyright law.